Terrorist Groups: Discussion and Insights 1. Should separatist/nationalist terrorist groups be dealt with differently than religious or political terrorists? What strategies might be most appropriate?

The approaches adopted in dealing with nationalist terrorist groups ought to differ from those used to repress religious or political terrorists. In essence, nationalist terrorism, according to Sanchez-Cuenca (2007) seeks enhanced autonomy or independence for a specified territory. For this reason, “the combination of territorial claims and armed struggle gives rise to a very definite strategy, violence intended to coerce the State” (Sanchez-Cuenca, 2007). On the other hand, religious terrorism and political terrorism are often based on objectives that have religious or political connotations respectively. Given their diverse motivations, the various kinds of terrorism utilize distinctive strategies and approaches to attain their objectives. Nationalist terrorist groups, for instance, seek to break the will of the State by killing repeatedly (Sanchez-Cuenca, 2007). Religious terrorism mostly consists of committing acts meant to terrify those targeted into embracing a perspective that is often founded on religious scriptures and in some instances, geopolitical undercurrents. Thus, each of the terror formations ought to be dealt with differently. Towards this end, there are strategies that would be most appropriate in dealing with separatist/nationalist terrorist groups. As the Council of Foreign Relations – CFR (2006) points out, the basic concept of most nations such as the U.S. in dealing with nationalist terrorist formations has been refusal to negotiate. CFR, however, states that this strategy is doomed to fail given the realities of politics in the modern day. For this reason, ceasefire talks may be the more effective approach in dealing with separatist/nationalist terrorist groups. Ceasefire negotiations could be brokered by regional or international powers with an aim of establishing central truths about the conflict so as to find common ground. In so doing, the relevant courses of action must be implemented to not only halt violence, but also prevent a resurgence of the same.

2. The Middle East has been a hotbed of terrorist activity from all sides. There are many factors contributing to this. Choose and discuss three major contributing factors to the unrest and violence in this region of the world.

One of the main contributing factors to terrorism activity in the Middle East is Iran’s support for terror formations. According to Levitt (2015), Iran has been known to advance its regional power via its support for a number of non-state surrogates. These proxies include, but they are not limited to Houthi insurgents...

In essence, all the groups highlighted above continue to partake in terror activities. It is instructive to note that Iran has been cited by President Trump as an important sponsor of terrorism.
Yet another contributing factor to violence and unrest in the region is youth unemployment. In seeking to assess the relationship between terrorism and youth unemployment in the MENAP region (i.e. Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan), Bagchi and Paul (2018) found out that “youth unemployment increases domestic terrorism in MENAP countries” (9). Lack of job opportunities in the Middle East exposes youths to idleness and makes them easy targets for radicalization purposes. Further, a high unemployment rate means a steady flow of manpower for those recruiting foreign and domestic fighters.

Lastly, the diverse objectives of various formations seeking to advance partisan, ethnic, as well as national goals appears to stimulate as well as advance acts of criminality and terror in the region. Towards this end, terroristic tendencies are evoked by not only fragmented nationalistic movements, but also by idealists and those advancing a liberation agenda. It should be noted that in this case, the said formations are weak and small and thus unable to engage in organized confrontations. Thus, the only option on this front remains terroristic deportment.

3. Discuss how religious terrorists are different from political terrorists (if you think that they are). Which of the two types of terrorists are more dangerous?

Religious terrorism differs significantly from political terrorism. However, neither kind of terrorism has an assigned definition. This is to say that various definitions have been floated in the past by various authors in an attempt to elucidate on the nature of both. It should be noted, from the onset, that unlike political terrorism, religious terrorism offers few, if any, intervention opportunities (Gregg, 2014). Given their political intent, political terrorists often have a definite agenda that often has its basis on the public affairs of a country or region. For this reason, political terrorism could be viewed as a weapon wielded by those who feel oppressed or left out in some settings. With this in mind, addressing the root cause of the politically motivated violence which could be inclusive of kidnapping, arson, or assassination could come in handy in seeking to rein in political terrorism. On the other hand, it is important to note that terrorism based on religious grounds is often irrational and often results in acts of terror that are not only indiscriminant, but also unrestrained. Jean-Francois Mayer (as cited in Gregg, 2014, p.…